When Homer accidentally spills beer on the Internet hub, which is located in the basement of the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant, the entire family becomes responsible for supplying the online needs of the world, 24 hours a day.

Got this yesterday. It's alright, but not great. Homer destroys the Internet within the first few pages, and the rest of the story is basically the family helping people out with research and emails and whatever. It's basically the same joke repeated a hundred times. And there's no real conclusion either, it's basically "let's get drunk and forget what's happened". And - yes I'm starting to complain - I'm reeeeally getting tired of Ian Boothby having to make everything the characters say a pun or play on words of some sort, it's as if he thinks the reader is too stupid to understand a subtle reference so he ruins it by explaining the joke (he did the same in Futurama #59 with the iPhone game references, there was one that actually made me laugh until he had the Professor explain exactly what the reference was. If the reader doesn't understand what something is referring to, then too bad IMO. Don't restrict story development for the sake of "including" every reader on a joke).

The thing that irks me, is what the internet is actually portrayed as. What is shown wasn't the internet. If it was claimed to be Springfield's exchange for connecting to the internet, then that makes better sense. After all, if it were the internet in it's entirety, then everyone on the planet would be going after the Simpsons for their browsing needs, not just Springfield.

I think they know what it really is, but came up with this to try and get to the main point of the book ('gag' after 'gag' making fun of the internet), I took it more as Ian Boothby trying to be funny and totally failing.

I know I'm just beating a dead horse by complaining more and more, but his style of writing really annoys me - when he writes a Futurama story you could just as easily change Bender to Homer, Fry to Marge, the Professor to Grampa, etc, and also call it an issue of Simpsons Comics. The two series are so different in style, yet his writing for both is identical. He changes the personalities of the characters to suit his jokes, when other writers do the right thing and write jokes to suit the characters. His plots are flimsy with little setup or resolution, he just tries to get straight into the jokes and puns as soon as possible (worst example would have to be Robot Robin Hood - you know I'm a huge sucker for a good Beatles reference, but the first few pages of that issue made me want to tear it up out of frustration, worst shit I have ever read. His other attempts at similar Beatles references [that are nothing more than a pun of a song title or lyric] are just as bad, as are most of his other attempts at references). He seems to think he's very clever by referring to things that happened in the episodes of the series, lacks any kind of subtlety. His writing style reads as if it's from the fan section of No Homers. And every! Sentence! He writes! Ends! With! Exclamation marks!!!

Ahh, yeah. Not the best, but still not the worst. The way they describe the Internet is quite: Most of the jokes are kind of "quick." Kind of Simpsons kind of jokes, but a bit more lame. The jokes about what people do has its moments, but isn't really used t its fullest. Kind of predictable.It is all like the story is just made up because now they have got this idea, and wanted to make a story about it. But they didn't use to much time to think more subtile jokes in to it.

Link to Post: https://bongo.babysimpson.co.uk/index.php?msg=11232

Some people seek justice so persistent, that they will do great injustice themselves.